- I am the original owner
- Excellent or better
- All original items included EXCEPT hot shoe cover and eye cup. Pentax Magnifying eyecup will come installed. Also incldes Wasabi wall charger and 2 wasabi batteries.
- Now includes Kirk L-plate!

**SOLD** 2. Pentax DA 18-135 WR ($205 Shipped) **SOLD**

- I purchased this as a refurbished lens. (No issues)
- Excellent or better condition
- Box and original items included

**SOLD** 3. Pentax 55-300 F4-5.8 WR ($215 Shipped) **SOLD**

- I am the original owner
- This lens is in great shape and has seen little use.
- Box and original items included

**SOLD** 4. Pentax DA* 55 1.4 SDM ($300 Shipped) **SOLD**

- I am the original owner
- This lens is in great OPTICAL and COSMETIC shape, however
- The lens AF takes 3-5 seconds to wake up every time the camera has been powered off for a while. Then the AF works fine, but slow, like all of this model do. I have no other body or SDM lenses to better isolate the cause. But, given the history of SDM lenses, lets assume it is the lens. For this reason, this lens is sold AS-IS
- Box and original items included

5. Pentax DA 10-17 fisheye ($275 Shipped) NOW $250

- I am not the original owner
- Excellent or better condition
- Box and original items NOT included
- Only lens, and Pentax front and rear cap

6. Pentax F50 1.7 ($75 Shipped)

- I am not the original owner
- Good Condition. Scuffs. Crack in the focus distance window
- Only lens, and Pentax front and rear cap
- I am marking the price down due to the cosmetic condition and while not soft, this lens is not quite as sharp as an earlier copy I had.

7. Pentax FA 35 2.0 ($200 Shipped)

- I am not the original owner
- Excellent or better cosmetic and optical condition condition
- Significant scratch on distance scale window
- I bought this from KEH as a BGN lens. Probably they marked it as BGN because there is little bit more wobble when extended then there should be. This has not been a problem for me and has not affected picture quality for me.
- Only lens, and Pentax front and rear cap

- I am not the original owner
- Good condition condition. Optically excellent, but body of lens has some paint loss
- Note this is not a recently designed lens. Temper IQ expectations accordingly, especially near wide open.
- Only lens, front and rear cap

**SOLD** 9. Pentax AF-540FGZ flash ($145 Shipped) **SOLD**

- Good condition
- Flash unit only

**SOLD** 10. Pentax AF-360FGZ flash ($75 Shipped) **SOLD**

- Good condition
- Flash unit only

**SOLD** 11. Pentax AF-200FG flash ($15 Shipped, as an add on to another purchase. Not selling separately) **SOLD**

- New and unused, box, pouch and papers included

Shipping and Payment Terms:

-Paypal payment is accepted and I will absorb the standard paypal fee.
-US shipping is included via USPS priority mail.
-Items will be shipped from Minnesota, USA
-In most cases I will be able to ship the next business day.

I really appreciate everyone's feedback and the photos posted. It sounds like I need to try out copy #3.

To answer the question about focus tuning, I have not formally tested it, but it "seems" spot on. Also, when testing sharpness and contrast, I snapped photos of the back of a dollar bill at an angle. There is a lot of fine detail in the texture of the paper and the printing.

Please help me understand if I have a "bad copy" of the DA*55, or if the below behavior is normal.

I recently bought a new DA*55. At f1.6 and smaller, the aperture blades do not seem to close down evenly as shown below in a photo at f1.6. Part of the circle is nice and rounded, but part is ugly because the aperture blades are not even, or not closing evenly. So I returned it for another copy. But the second copy exhibits the exact same behavior on the exact same part of the circle! I know this is something that will not often come up in normal shooting conditions. But I intend this as my "artsy-fartsy" lens, so it will affect photos from time to time.

Is this effect normal? Are these bad copies?

Also, on both copies, while the lens IQ is good at f1.6, at f1.4 the sharpness is low, and the contrast very low. I guess this is to be expected, though?